Premium
Occlusal Wear of Provisional Implant‐Supported Restorations
Author(s) -
Santing Hendrik J.,
Kleverlaan Cornelis J.,
Werner Arie,
Feilzer Albert J.,
Raghoebar Gerry M.,
Meijer Henny J. A.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12072
Subject(s) - implant , dentistry , materials science , polymethyl methacrylate , crown (dentistry) , methacrylate , orthodontics , composite material , medicine , surgery , polymerization , polymer
Background Implant‐supported provisional restorations should be resistant to occlusal wear. Purpose The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate three‐body wear of three indirect laboratory composite resins, five chair side bis‐acryl resin‐based materials, and two chair side methacrylate‐based materials used to fabricate provisional implant‐supported restorations. Material and Methods The materials were handled and cured according to the manufacturers' instructions. The three‐body wear was measured 1 day, 3 days, 7 days, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after curing using the ACTA wear device. Results Wear rate decreased significantly after 8 weeks compared with the first day for all tested materials, except for E stenia C&B . The three‐body wear of two indirect laboratory composite resins, that is, E stenia C&B and Solidex, was significantly less compared with all other tested materials used for fabricating provisional implant‐supported restorations. Of the chair side materials, the wear rate of P rotemp C rown P aste was significantly less compared with the others materials used to fabricate chair side provisional implant‐supported restorations. The methacrylate‐based materials, T emdent C lassic and T rim, showed extreme high wear rates. Conclusions Based on the results of this laboratory study on long‐term wear, the use of indirect composite resin is preferred over chair side methacrylate‐based materials when the provisional implant‐supported restoration has to be in service for a long period of time. Of the investigated materials, only E stenia C&B and S olidex showed wear rate comparable with posterior resin composites.